And Now It Is Pre-cradle To The Grave, And, Beyond?


Selene

Recommended Posts

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

The State will never stop making decisions for it's citizens and that is why it must be resisted at every opportunity.

These types of immoral actions by the SS are no different from the original brand in Germany.

I detest "social workers" as a professional class.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Adam,

I had the weirdest thought.

When I looked at your headline (the "and beyond" part)--before I saw the story you were referring to--I thought, I wonder if one day there will be a clamor for government subsidized tithing.

:smile:

As to the story, an oligarchy of technocrats will always be infested with little bureaucratic souls who will constantly take it on themselves to expand their power and make up new rules--pull these new rules out of their butts, to be clear--for people to obey.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

The State will never stop making decisions for it's citizens and that is why it must be resisted at every opportunity.

These types of immoral actions by the SS are no different from the original brand in Germany.

I detest "social workers" as a professional class.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html

A...

If I did that it would be ripping open a woman's body and kidnapping her baby from it, for which I would receive (if convicted) a life term in prison. When the government does it, it is for the Public Good and an Act of Compassion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct Bob:

As I think the Barrister who filed the case with the High Court, possibly the High Court itself and certainly the agents of the SS who carried out this travesty.

Might include the Doctor, anesthesiologist and nurses that assisted in the operation along with every other "good bureaucrat" who even touched the Order.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I had the weirdest thought.

When I looked at your headline (the "and beyond" part)--before I saw the story you were referring to--I thought, I wonder if one day there will be a clamor for government subsidized tithing.

:smile:

Michael:

I actually added that last part about beyond the grave because I watched a legal symposium on DNA forensics on C-PAN the other day that basically confirmed that the "government' has samples of each individuals genomic material that is gathered at birth from almost every hospital and birthing center in the US.

Several of the attendees from the judicial, education and legal communites were rather appalled that this trove of information existed past a certain date in the '70s or '80s.

Apparently, the blood smear that is taken of a child for a particular genetic defect is filed away. The only notification to either parent is when this genetic "flaw" is discoverd.

It needs to immediately treated with certain enzymes [?] within three (3) days, or, severe retardation is inescapable. It is the difference between a negligible loss of five (5), or, ten (10) "I.Q." points and eighty (80) to ninety (90) I.Q. points.

So, I can see the state having control of your genomic material past death also.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

Always take note what precedes an atrocity, for there lies the answer. Once the woman had abdicated control over her own mind, by default she handed that control over to the healthcare system. Dollars to donuts, drug use was a factor.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Dollars to donuts, drug use was a factor.

That is a heavy acusation that you hurled at the High Court of Great Britain, Greg.

Where is your proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The State is going to run out of money for this before it runs out of people to screw over.

People can get just as screwed over with government borrowed money... maybe even more. :wink:

The state derives its "just powers" to screw people over from the people themselves who give up that power to the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Dollars to donuts, drug use was a factor.

That is a heavy acusation that you hurled at the High Court of Great Britain, Greg.

Where is your proof?

You're looking in the wrong direction. I wasn't talking about the legal system, but was referencing the woman herself. People are perfectly capable of drug abuse all on their own without any intervention from the government.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Dollars to donuts, drug use was a factor.

That is a heavy acusation that you hurled at the High Court of Great Britain, Greg.

Where is your proof?

You're looking in the wrong direction. I wasn't talking about the legal system, but was referencing the woman herself. People are perfectly capable of drug abuse all on their own without any intervention from the government.

Greg

Really?

So putting boys on Ritilin, other mind altering drugs and psychotropics that have been linked to a high propensity of cocaine use in their teen and adult years has no validity?

Moreover, the "special education" I.E.P.'s specifically overprescribe the above drugs to young boys.

Is that not government intervention?

There's lots more.

Finally, I believe that the High Court of England is just as prone to drug abuse as that Italian mother who was working in England.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Dollars to donuts, drug use was a factor.

That is a heavy acusation that you hurled at the High Court of Great Britain, Greg.

Where is your proof?

You're looking in the wrong direction. I wasn't talking about the legal system, but was referencing the woman herself. People are perfectly capable of drug abuse all on their own without any intervention from the government.

Greg

Really?

So putting boys on Ritilin, other mind altering drugs and psychotropics that have been linked to a high propensity of cocaine use in their teen and adult years has no validity?

Here again, take a step back and look at what precedes the atrocity, for there is where the real answer is. Here you're talking about crappy parents who first abdicated personal moral responsibility for their own kids. Their own failure is what grants the government the permission to control kids with the universal narcoculture solution for every problem... dope.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you're talking about crappy parents who first abdicated personal moral responsibility for their own kids. Their own failure is what grants the government the permission to control kids with the universal narcoculture solution for every problem... dope.

Greg

Reallly?

Let me provide you with a set of facts:

1) an entire committee of "experts" determines a particular course of action because "Johnny" "Juan" etc. desparateley needs this, or,

2) their child will be expelled from school;

3) the parents are "good" parents in that they desire to give their child every possible chance to succeed; and

4) these professional experts seem to be honest and trustworthy.

You conclude that they are "crappy" parents if they go along with what the Special Education Committee determines is in the best interests of their child?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you're talking about crappy parents who first abdicated personal moral responsibility for their own kids. Their own failure is what grants the government the permission to control kids with the universal narcoculture solution for every problem... dope.

Greg

Reallly?

Let me provide you with a set of facts:

1) an entire committee of "experts" determines a particular course of action because "Johnny" "Juan" etc. desparateley needs this, or,

2) their child will be expelled from school;

3) the parents are "good" parents in that they desire to give their child every possible chance to succeed; and

4) these professional experts seem to be honest and trustworthy.

You conclude that they are "crappy" parents if they go along with what the Special Education Committee determines is in the best interests of their child?

A...

You're both right, but Greg steps back--goes deeper--when it comes to children. You didn't when it comes to compulsory public or faux private education. These schools are built on the prison model. If your children aren't home-schooled they're being abused, mentally (and perhaps physically), if for no other reason than for what they are not being taught. You should be so lucky for only that last item.

--Brant

it was true when I was in school and much worse, I'm sure, today

plus, sex, drugs and rock and roll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These schools are built on the prison model.

Brant,

They're actually built on the Prussian model from the 1800's. Dewey loved that system and opened up all stops on implementing it in America. The Prussians, of course, wanted good, obedient, educated citizens who would not run away during battle. :smile:

That's why kids have to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school, why the Star Spangled Banner is played at the beginning of sports events, and so on. The curriculum is also geared toward model citizens, although this has been meddled with a lot over the last few decades. It seems like the school system is set up to give people facts, but not encourage them to think. To make them look like they are "participating" in society, but not on any power-threatening level.

This is not an education model. It's an indoctrination model. It's loose and flops all over the place, but it still leans in the indoctrination direction more than education.

Now there's Common Core to iron out the mind-control kinks and make it more uniform...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These schools are built on the prison model. If your children aren't home-schooled they're being abused, mentally (and perhaps physically), if for no other reason than for what they are not being taught.

Spot on, Brant.

I absolutely DETESTED school with every fiber of my being, and couldn't wait to get out that black hole of Calcutta and out into the real world.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to provide some clarification (gleaned from the actual articles about this story), the woman is bipolar and was off her medication. It would appear that this situation was precipitated by a lack of drugs rather than an overuse of them.

Cortect.

The less invasive procedure would have been to monitor her and, if there was no danger to the individual that she was carrying in her womb, bring her slowly back to a medicated state.

Second, if that could not be done and the SS removed the child, her family should have been a first option for care of the infant, not the state.

I would appreciate your input on these alternatives.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to provide some clarification (gleaned from the actual articles about this story), the woman is bipolar and was off her medication. It would appear that this situation was precipitated by a lack of drugs rather than an overuse of them.

You've just expressed the popular collective consensus of the narcoculture... where problems are now defined as a lack of drugs, and the only solution is more drugs.

Once a person is on drugs, they've already abdicated responsibility for their life to the government. It's a mistake to blame (unjustly accuse) the government, when it is not the enemy. By default, it only governs those who fail to govern themselves.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to provide some clarification (gleaned from the actual articles about this story), the woman is bipolar and was off her medication. It would appear that this situation was precipitated by a lack of drugs rather than an overuse of them.

You've just expressed the popular collective consensus of the narcoculture... where problems are now defined as a lack of drugs, and the only solution is more drugs.

Once a person is on drugs, they've already abdicated responsibility for their life to the government. It's a mistake to blame (unjustly accuse) the government, when it is not the enemy. By default, it only governs those who fail to govern themselves.

Greg

This doesn't make sense. You could say the same about any prescription medication. We don't take a prescription med because it's a prescription med in the name of personal responsibility?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to provide some clarification (gleaned from the actual articles about this story), the woman is bipolar and was off her medication. It would appear that this situation was precipitated by a lack of drugs rather than an overuse of them.

Cortect.

The less invasive procedure would have been to monitor her and, if there was no danger to the individual that she was carrying in her womb, bring her slowly back to a medicated state.

Second, if that could not be done and the SS removed the child, her family should have been a first option for care of the infant, not the state.

I would appreciate your input on these alternatives.

A...

There is not enough information available. We don't know why she was off her medication. If it was deemed unhealthy for the baby, and the decision to stop medicating was a fully informed one, then I would expect there to be some evidence of this and therefore, some evidence of a care provider of some sort available to be consulted. We don't know if her next of kin was consulted or in what way or how often. We don't know the status of the baby's father or if he was consulted. We don't know the nature or severity of the mental breakdown. I, personally, don't know the specific British laws that would have allowed this woman's detainment in a mental facility, much less a forced invasive procedure that impacts two lives. We don't know if the baby was in distress (other than the implied distress of being resident inside the body of a bipolar sufferer who has been forcibly detained). All that said, yes there does appear to be many alternatives that could have been more beneficial to all parties.

My brother is bipolar. He has, at many times in his life, stopped medicating. It was during one of those times that he threatened to come into my house in the middle of the night and slash my son's throat while he slept. I don't blame the government for his mental illness, nor do I blame the government for his decisions to stop medicating. The government played no part in either of those things. I do blame the government for making it necessary for my mother to go bankrupt and the rest of our family to have to spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting for the right to provide care for someone we love during times when he was incapable of caring for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to provide some clarification (gleaned from the actual articles about this story), the woman is bipolar and was off her medication. It would appear that this situation was precipitated by a lack of drugs rather than an overuse of them.

You've just expressed the popular collective consensus of the narcoculture... where problems are now defined as a lack of drugs, and the only solution is more drugs.

Once a person is on drugs, they've already abdicated responsibility for their life to the government. It's a mistake to blame (unjustly accuse) the government, when it is not the enemy. By default, it only governs those who fail to govern themselves.

Greg

This doesn't make sense. You could say the same about any prescription medication.

It makes perfect sense for psychotropic drugs used to control the emotional behavior of people who have failed to control their own emotions. That's a total abdication of personal responsibility to actually FAIL to master your own mind.

The government is also a psychotropic drug, for it also governs those who have failed to govern themselves.

We don't take a prescription med because it's a prescription med in the name of personal responsibility?

That's the dominant societal view of the narcoculture. But the reality is that drugs can only address symptoms... but never causes.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His overgeneraliztions and classic two choice dichotmies are serious flaws in his argumentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Of course drugs can address causes.

Just because the system is tilted toward abuse and continuity scams, that doesn't mean ALL drugs cannot work at eradicating a pathological cause.

ALL drugs is a pretty big category...

Michael

Can you offer some examples of drugs which treat causes?

I was generally referring to the topic of psychotropic drugs used for "mood control" which is only a symptom of the failure to gain mastery over our own thoughts and emotions.

But what I had said also could be applied to the almost universal use of statins which only control the symptom of high cholesterol without treating the causes. Same goes for the near universal use of diuretics which only treat the symptom of high blood pressure without treating the causes. Even ubiquitous "pain relievers" can only treat the symptom of pain without treating the causes.

I'm sure there are some exceptions and I'm open to hear them.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now